i

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

KUMASI

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

ANALYSIS OF EMISSIONS AND ENERGY CONTENT OF COCONUT HUSK

THIS DISSERTATION IS BEING SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, KNUST IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF BSC. (HONS) DEGREE IN AGRICULTURAL

ENGINEERING

BY

AMOAH YEBOAH DERRICK

MAY, 2016

i

DECLARATION

“I solemnly declare that I have wholly undertaken the study reported herein under the supervision

of Prof. Ebenezer Mensah and Dr. George Yaw Obeng, and except portions where references

have been duly cited, this dissertation is the outcome of my research”.

……………………………… …………………………………………..

DATE AMOAH YEBOAH DERRICK

……………………………… …………………………………………..

DATE PROF. EBENEZER MENSAH

(SUPERVISOR)

……………………………… …………………………………………..

DATE DR. GEORGE YAW OBENG

(SUPERVISOR)

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My utmost gratitude to my one and only Lord Almighty who has graced me success throughout

my undergraduate career and held me through this race of project till now. He who listens to me

anytime I talk to.

I am also grateful to my parents, Mr. Emmanuel Yeboah and Mad. Georgina Amoaba, and Mr

and Mrs Ampomah for their relentless support, love, care and having hope in me that I can come

this far and be successful.

Also, I appreciate the fathering and supervisory role of my supervisors, Prof. Ebenezer Mensah

of the Department of Agricultural Engineering and Dr. Yaw Obeng of Technology Consultancy

Centre, whose constructive criticisms and guidance has brought me this far. I am hugely grateful

for their financial assistance and time spent on me during the preparation of this manuscript. It is

my earnest prayer that God replenishes all that they have lost during their supervisory role of this

work.

Special appreciation to the International Development Innovation Network (IDIN) project for

their materials grant, Mr. Obed Nenyi Otoo of C-lab, KNUST and Auntie Maggie, all of TCC for

being there for me anytime I called upon. Also to my charring mate, Mr. Patrick Amaning, and

dear lady Miss. Yvette Bridgette Akuetteh for care and assistance on delivering a good report of

my work. Not forgetting Roland Abuntori for his prayers and support.

Last but not the least, my gratitude to Uncle Isaac of Abentsi (coconut seller) who has been of

much help in acquiring my materials during hard times, then to all friends who have supported

me directly or indirectly through their company. God richly bless you all.

iii

ABSTRACT

Waste management has always been a huge challenge to Ghana. Waste creates filth and pollutes

the environment, breeds infections and facilitates disasters such as flooding. Coconut husk waste

is no exception of this situation, as it blocks waterways, creates mosquito breeding sites to cause

malaria and becomes nuisance to the environment. Waste coconut husk can be recycled or reused

in order to reduce its adverse effects on man and the environment. In this study, 50 coconuts (25

local coconut varieties and 25 hybrid coconut varieties) were purchased form a coconut seller

who obtains his nuts from Jomoro District in the Western Region where coconuts are grown on

large scale. The coconuts were weighed, dehusked, biocharred and the energy content and

emissions were determined using the bomb calorimeter and the Indoor Air Pollution (IAP) meter

respectively. The weight of waste obtained after dehusking was calculated on percentage basis to

know the percentage of parts that constitute waste. The study results showed that the local variety

had energy content of 11.54 MJ/kg while the hybrid variety had an energy content of 9.73 MJ/kg.

The emissions values obtained from the local variety was 1078 ug/m3 for PM2.5 and 9.18 ppm for

CO while the hybrid variety had 1208 ug/m3 for PM2.5 10.6 ppm for CO. The results also

indicated that 65.5% of the local coconut variety constitute waste while 62.5% of the hybrid

constitute waste. From results obtained, it was concluded that the local variety had a higher

energy content than the hybrid variety. The emissions values obtained from both varieties

indicate that both varieties do not meet the WHO standards. The indication is that burning of

waste coconut husk could be harmful to the users and the environment if burning is not done

under controlled conditions. The results for percentage of parts that constitute waste implies that

a greater amount of the coconut is made up of waste.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION.............................................................................................................................. i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF PLATES ......................................................................................................................... ix

ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Justification ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Main Objective ................................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Specific Objectives ............................................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 4

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Waste management ............................................................................................................ 4

2.1.1 Coconut husk waste management ............................................................................... 4

2.1.2 Utilisation of waste ..................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Biomass and bioenergy ...................................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Biomass ....................................................................................................................... 9

v

2.2.2 Bioenergy .................................................................................................................. 10

2.3 Emissions and greenhouse effect ..................................................................................... 12

2.3.1 Emissions .................................................................................................................. 12

2.3.2 Greenhouse gas ......................................................................................................... 13

2.4 Energy content.................................................................................................................. 14

2.4.1 Energy content of coconut ........................................................................................ 14

2.5 COMPOSITION OF COCONUT .................................................................................... 16

2.5.1 Physical properties .................................................................................................... 16

2.5.2 Coconut husk ............................................................................................................ 17

2.5.3 Coconut fibre ............................................................................................................ 19

2.5.4 Coconut shell ............................................................................................................ 19

2.5.5 Copra ......................................................................................................................... 19

2.5.6 Uses of coconut and its husk ..................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 21

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS .................................................................................. 21

3.1 Experimental site, collection of coconuts. ....................................................................... 21

3.2 Weighing whole fruit ....................................................................................................... 21

3.3 Dehusking......................................................................................................................... 21

3.4 Weighing the shell and fruit ............................................................................................. 21

3.5 Drying............................................................................................................................... 22

3.6 Charring ............................................................................................................................ 23

vi

3.7 Determination of emissions ........................................................................................... 23

3.8 Energy content determination....................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 27

4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 27

4.1 Energy Content of Charred Coconut Husk ...................................................................... 27

4.2 Emissions from charred coconut husk ............................................................................. 28

4.3 Percentage of parts that result as waste ............................................................................ 32

CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 34

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 34

5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 34

5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 34

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 36

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... 44

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Energy values of coconut husk ..................................................................................... 15

Table 2.2: Heating values of coconut residues .............................................................................. 15

Table 2.3: Energy content for selected parts of the coconut fruit .................................................. 15

Table 2.4: Uses of the chemical properties of coconut husk ......................................................... 18

Table 4.1: Heat capacity and calorific value of local and hybrid variety of coconut .................... 27

Table 4.2: Particulate matter and Carbon monoxide concentrations of hybrid coconut variety. ... 29

Table 4.3: Particulate matter and Carbon monoxide concentrations of local coconut variety. ..... 29

Table 4.4: Weight of parts of local and hybrid varieties................................................................ 32

Table 1A1: Heat capacity of local variety ..................................................................................... 44

Table 1A2: Heat capacity of hybrid variety ................................................................................... 44

Table 1B1: Calorific value of local variety.................................................................................... 45

Table 1B2: Calorific value of hybrid variety ................................................................................. 45

Table 2 A1: Moisture content of local coconut variety ................................................................. 46

Table 2A2: Moisture content of hybrid coconut variety ................................................................ 47

Table 2B1: Temperature produced during the charring of hybrid coconut variety. ...................... 48

Table 2B2: Temperature produced during the charring of local coconut variety. ......................... 48

Table 2D1: WHO standards for particulate matter (2.5) and carbon monoxide concentrations. .. 50

Table 3A1: Weights of parts of local coconut variety ................................................................... 51

Table 3A2: Weights of parts of hybrid coconut variety ................................................................ 52

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Particulate matter concentration of local and hybrid varieties .................................... 30

Figure 4.2: Carbon monoxide concentration for local and hybrid varieties .................................. 30

Figure 4.3: Percentage weight composition of waste for local coconut variety. ........................... 33

Figure 4.4: Percentage weight composition of waste for hybrid coconut variety. ........................ 33

Figure 2A1: Moisture content of local coconut variety for 18 days .............................................. 46

Figure 2A2: Moisture content of hybrid coconut variety for 18 days. .......................................... 47

Figure 2C1: Particulate Matter and Carbon monoxide concentrations of local coconut variety .. 49

Figure 3B1: Whole weight of local coconut variety. ..................................................................... 53

Figure 3B2: Whole weight of hybrid coconut variety. .................................................................. 53

Figure 3C1: Husk weight for local coconut variety. ...................................................................... 54

Figure 3C2: Husk weight of hybrid coconut variety. .................................................................... 54

Figure 3D1: Shell weight of local coconut variety. ....................................................................... 55

Figure 3E1: Shell weight of hybrid coconut variety. ..................................................................... 55

Figure 3F1: Fruit weight of local coconut variety. ........................................................................ 56

Figure 3F2: Fruit weight of hybrid coconut variety....................................................................... 56

ix

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 2.1: Coconut husk for making carpet ...................................................................................... 6

Plate 2.5: Transverse section of coconut fruit ................................................................................ 18

Plate 3.1: Field measurement of moisture content using the wood moisture meter. ..................... 22

Plate 3.2: Picture showing dehusking ............................................................................................ 22

Plate 3.3: Picture showing researcher winding wires over electrodes on the oxygen bomb of the

bomb calorimeter. .......................................................................................................................... 25

Plate 3.4: Sectional view of the C- lab, KNUST. .......................................................................... 25

Plate 3.5: Picture showing the nature of ........................................................................................ 26

smoke produced after drying coconut ............................................................................................ 26

waste for 15 days ........................................................................................................................... 26

Plate 3.7: Picture showing initial ................................................................................................... 26

charring process ............................................................................................................................. 26

x

ABBREVIATIONS CFC – chlorofluorocarbon

CH4 – Methane

CH4 – Methane

C-lab - Cook stove testing and expertise laboratory

CO – Carbon monoxide

CO2 – Carbon dioxide

NH3 - Ammonia

EC – Energy Commission

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

GIMP - Ghana Innovation Market Place

GIPC - Ghana Investment Promotion Centre

H2O – water

HFCs – Hydrofluorocarbons

kJ/K – kilo Joule per Kelvin

LFG – Land Fill Gas

MC – Moisture content

MJ/kg - Mega Joule per kilogram

MPa – Mega pascal

N20 - Nitrous oxide

NOX – term for mono nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2)

O3 – Ozone

PAHS – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PFCs - Perfluorocarbons

PM2.5 – Particulate Matter (of diameter less than 2.5 microns)

xi

ppm – Parts per million

SD card – Secure Digital card

SF6 - Sulphur hexafluoride

SO2 – Sulphur dioxide

TCC - Technology Consultancy Centre

ug/m3 – microgram per metre cube

UNCTAD - United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme

VOCS – Volatile Organic Compounds

WHO – World Health Organization.

1

CHAPTER ONE 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Coconut, scientifically known as Cocos nucifera is a perennial fruit that thrives well on sandy

soils and mostly in the tropical locations of about 92 countries worldwide. As of 2011, United

Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2012), recorded a total

production data of coconut as 23 million tonnes per year worldwide. Ghana Investment

Promotion Centre (GIPC) (2016) reports that coconut cultivation in Ghana is mostly done on

small scale. The small scale farming of coconut contributes to about 80% of the total annual

production of coconut; that is 179 million nuts out of 224 million nuts.

Every part of the coconut plant is useful (Mamlouk and Zaniewski, 2006). The industrial

applications of coconut husk are realized in various sectors such as renewable engineering for

energy, soap making and raw materials supplies, wood carving industry for making dolls and

wall hangings, construction industry for making roofs and improving health. Furthermore, it

is employed in the textile industry for making fibres for clothing and bags.

The fruit is very much appreciated for its juice and food with the husk regarded as waste.

This is because there has not been any firm decision on what the husk could be used for.

Awareness on the usefulness of the coconut is not much known to Ghanaians, so there is

insignificant development in such an area. Ofori-Nyarko (2000), reported that in Ghana, 78%

of all the primary sources of energy consumption stems from fuelwood utilization. Also, 80%

of households in Ghana depend on fuelwood as a source of energy for cooking and water

heating (Energy Commission, 2012). Due to the continuous rise of fuel prices, many either

2

stick or resort to firewood as a source of energy. Even with this condition, as the common

wood species become more expensive or scarce, people divert to any fuelwood without

considering its effect to the environment when burnt.

1.2 Problem Statement

Coconut husk management attracts very little or no attention in our society today. After the

edible portions of the coconut fruit are consumed, the husks are thrown away or burnt.

Improper disposal and burning of husks result in the creation of environmental problems such

as air pollution and chocked (gutter) mosquito breeding sites that tend to cause cholera,

malaria and fever. Local food vendors who use coconut husks as firewood are exposed to

smoke which is unhealthy to their health. Coconut husk has become more of an

environmental nuisance due to the difficulty in handling it as waste. Coconut sellers have to

plead with food vendors to come for the waste and use it as firewood as a way of

management. In view of that, payment is made for dumping it at the incinerator.

1.3 Justification

Coconut husk, which is considered waste in our society, will be of much benefit than harm if

much attention is centered on the recycle or reuse of the waste. Due to deforestation and

shortage of fuelwood in Ghana, there is the need to find an alternative source of energy to

sustain the economy. Therefore, the need to investigate the amount of waste that could be

obtained from coconut husk, energy content of the husk and levels of pollution during the

biocharring process of the coconut husk. This would serve an energy production purpose and

also keep our environment clean and healthy.

3

1.4 Main Objective

To determine the emissions and energy content of coconut husk.

1.5 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this project are:

1. To determine energy content of charred coconut husk.

2. To analyse emissions of charred coconut husk.

3. To determine the percentage of coconut parts that come out as waste.

4

CHAPTER TWO 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Waste management

Waste management can be defined as the proper handling and storage of any material after it

has lost its intended purpose. Waste can either be in the liquid state or solid state. Coconut

husk can be considered as solid waste and for this reason, Ghana Innovation Marketplace

(GIM) (2009) has defined solid waste as waste that is neither waste water discharges nor

atmospheric emissions arising from domestic, commercial, industrial and institutional

activities in an urban area.

Waste production has never been a challenge but its management has always been. According

to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2009), 2.02 billion tonnes of

municipal solid waste was generated globally in 2006, following 37.3% increase within 2007

and 2011. Ghana generates about 3 million tonnes of solid waste annually (Otoo, 2013).

2.1.1 Coconut husk waste management

Solid waste management is the discipline associated with the control of the generation,

storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing and disposal of solid wastes in a manner

that is in accordance with the best principles of public health, economics, engineering,

conservation, aesthetics and other environmental considerations, and that is also responsive to

public attitudes (Puopiel, 2010). Coconut waste for that matter, created annually in cities and

towns of southern Ghana is estimated to be about 200,000 to 300,000 metric tons (“Greening

the Savannah Project “, 2012).

Coconut husk used to be well managed in Ghana, but has over the years seen a drastic

decline. It used to be employed in the making of carpets but now little is seen about that. Due

to its usefulness being lost in the system, no management practice is being attached to it.

5

After consuming the copra and juice, the husks are thrown away and they end up rotting in

the field or are heaped to be burnt (Meyer, 2001). The coconut husks are littered all around

street corners, walkways, backyards, or burnt in open space causing serious carbon pollution

(“Greening the Savannah Project’’, 2012).

Challenges facing coconut husk management in Ghana as a developing country is in perfect

line with observation of Ogawa (2005) such as low collection coverages, irregular collection

services, crude open dumping, burning without air and water pollution control. In addition to

that, wrong coconut husk management issues in our society is a clear evidence of the views

from Puopiel, (2010) that, proper waste collection and proper disposal of refuse are daunting

issues facing Ghana.

2.1.2 Utilisation of waste

Crop waste management and utilisation in Ghana is beginning to see the light, in that farmers

and consumers have come to the realisation that almost every by-product of every crop is

useful in one way or the other.

Coconut husk could be effectively managed and utilised by feeding our local manufacturing

industries for the fabrication of carpet, egg crates, crop manure and compost, detergents,

yarns and ropes, and many more. This could be done simply by recycling the coconut husk.

Furthermore, it could be reused by using them as firewood for domestic and commercial

purposes. In the area of domestics, it could be used for boiling water, cooking and heating

farm structures when the weather gets cold. In the area of commercial, it could be used to

bake bread, prepare foods (“kenkey”, “banku”, “waakye”, “kokonte”, “tuo-zaafi” and many

more) for sale.

6

Ayamga et al. (2015) identified the potential of residues from sorghum, maize, millet and

groundnut residue in the Lawra-Nandom District of Ghana for energy purposes. Gertenbach

and Dugmore (2004) also employed the accumulation of residues from crops to feed

livestock, with innovative preference to ruminants.

Plate 2.1: Coconut husk for making carpet Plate 2.2: Coconut husk used as mulch

Source: https://sites.google.com/a/illinois Source: http://www.braidedroses.com

Plate 2.3: Egg crate made from coconut husk Plate 2.4: Coconut husk used for yarns

Source: http://sweetdomesticity.com Source: http://dignitycoconuts.com

7

2.1.3 Advantages and disadvantages of waste management

2.1.3.1 Advantages

x Reduce pollution.

Waste management eliminates dirt from the environment thereby providing a

refreshing air to breath, clean water to drink, and a tidy environment that tends to

destroy the breeding homes of mosquitoes and other harmful microorganisms. It also

reduces the incidence of greenhouse gas emissions into the environment (Srinivas,

2015).

x Reduce energy consumption associated with the manufacture of new materials.

Much energy is saved from the manufacture of new products in that, the waste could

be channelled through reuse or little amount of energy factored for changing them

into other products (http://www.branz.co.nz/).

x Production of new materials or products.

When waste is properly managed, new materials or products are formed from it. The

cost of these new items are reduced by combining several waste products and few

additives or by simply changing the form of the original item and remoulded to form

something new.

x Reduces global environmental threats.

Managing waste is a sure way of offsetting the emissions of greenhouse gases such as

CO2 and CFCs which in turn shall reduce the effect of global warming. Reuse and

recycling are fine management practices for achieving this aim.

x Use of organic waste to create compost.

Proper waste management could be seen in the making of organic waste and compost

to feed plants to facilitate growth and development. Compost also gives the soil a fine

temperature as well as serving as a barrier to soil erosion.

8

x Health benefits.

Removing waste from public areas helps reduce risks to overall health. It reduces

exposure to biohazards and reduces infestation of microorganisms. Also, it destroys

breeding habitats of harmful organisms.

x Source of raw materials for industries.

Waste when properly managed could be used to feed our local industries for the

manufacture of goods from arts to clothing, and kitchen ware to agricultural inputs. It

could also be used to fuel boilers and other huge equipment for production purposes.

x Source of employment.

Waste management embraces vast job opportunities for a country. There are so many

hands needed on deck as far as waste management is concerned. In addition, it is a

lucrative area since waste is created every moment.

2.1.3.2 Disadvantages

x Managing waste can present hazards to nearby residents or workers through air

pollution, and creating breeding sites for bacteria, viruses and other harmful

microorganisms to cause diseases or infections. (Kukreja, 2015).

x Managing waste can sometimes be costly. This is because much capital is being

invested in the collection, transport and processing to form the new safe products they

are expected to be (Kukreja, 2015).

x Srinivas (2015) points out that managing waste poses another side of nuisance to the

people living close to such sites. This is due to the fact that, just the sight of gathering

waste is very displeasing and hard to stay by. Also, the whole process emits bad smell

into the atmosphere.

9

x According to Ogunjimi (2015), due to the hazards posed at waste management

facilities, many rules and regulations are being set to control movements and activities

there. This brings so much restrictions and uneasiness to workers, not making workers

work comfortably.

x Srinivas (2015) is of another view that waste management is tedious and requires

much time and energy investment. It mostly involves sorting out or re-sorting even

after the products have been accumulated through initial sorting. It also requires high

energy requirement to attain whatever state one expects the waste to be, and takes a

longer time too.

2.2 Biomass and bioenergy

2.2.1 Biomass

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2012) defined biomass as non-fossil material of

biological origin, such as energy crops, agricultural and forestry wastes and by-products,

manure or microbial biomass.

Biomass resources include wood and wood wastes, agricultural crops and their by-products,

municipal solid waste, animal wastes, wastes from food processing, aquatic plants and algae

(Milbrandt, 2009). Generally, biomass is composed mainly of cellulose, hemicellulose,

lignin, and small amounts of extractives with variations occurring in the amount of biomass

in crop residues due to factors such as variety, age of residue or stage of harvest, physical

composition, length of storage, and harvesting practices (Duku et al., 2011). According to

Duku et al. (2011), biomass conversion technologies tested in Ghana are chemical

transformation, biochemical conversion (anaerobic digestion) and thermal conversion

processes.

10

Biomass is an energy source, and as such is the major energy source in Ghana contributing

about 64% of Ghana's primary energy supply from products including agricultural crop

residues such as coconut (Duku et al., 2011). Biomass resource utilisation brings advantages

such as soil erosion control, waste management, offsetting GHG emissions (Duku et al.,

2011). Research has proven that using coconut husks can reduce diesel fuel consumption by

62% (Tooy et al., 2014).

Ablordeppey (2015) reports that Mr. Joesph Akowuah gave estimates of about 2700 cubic

metres of biomass available in Ghana that could yield the production of over 110 megawatts

(MW) of power across the country. According to Ablordeppey (2015), the researcher claims

that using about 60% biomass available across the country could help generate about 67 MW

of power, using small plants that can process a tonne of biomass each.

When biomass is heated or burnt in a closed chamber with limited or no amount of air, it is

known as biochar. Biochar production is much like charcoal making which is one of the

oldest industrial technologies. A biochar product is also referred to as a charred product.

Biochar production is a sure way for mitigating climate change, producing energy, managing

waste and applying as a soil amendment (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009).

2.2.2 Bioenergy

According to FAO, (2012) bioenergy refers to renewable energy produced from biomass;

which is organic material such as trees, plants (including crops), and waste materials

(examples: wood waste from mills, municipal wastes, manure, landfill gas (LFG), and

methane from waste water treatment facilities). FAO (2012) is also of the view that bioenergy

is energy derived from fuels produced directly or indirectly from biomass such as fuelwood,

charcoal, bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas (methane).

11

State Bioenergy Primer (2009), prepared a report stating that bioenergy is gradually attaining

recognition as an alternative for energy due to volatile fossil fuel prices, issues pertaining

national energy stability, effects of conventional energy use on the environment, and global

climate. Again, FA0 (2012) explains that bioenergy accounted for roughly 10% of the world

total primary energy supply in 2009, in which most of this is consumed in developing

countries by close to 3 billion people who depend on biomass (wood, charcoal, crop residue

and animal waste). Gülzow (2015) reported that these 3 billion people use the biomass for

activities such as cooking, which also accounts for 80% of total primary energy supply in

some developing countries.

Portner et al. (2009) is of the view that, bioenergy utilisation for electricity will serve a

massive populace of Africans specifically leaving in rural areas. Again, a study found out that

coconut husks have advantages for producing small scale electricity through gasification

technology (Tooy et al., 2014). However, Dasappa (2011) specifies sub-Saharan Africa as a

potential site for electricity especially through agro-residue and the (EC-Ghana, 2006)

approves of this fact for Ghana and even for other energy purposes. In addition, Balogun and

Liu, (2012) also identified biomass production for energy in Nigeria more specifically for the

rural environs.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) (2007) admits that bioenergy projects are

environmentally friendly in that they operate with zero or no greenhouse gas emissions,

nevertheless, policy makers should understand the biomass resource base, its measurement,

constraints from land use and water uptake, nutrient recycling and replacement and its effects

on a sustainable basis.

12

2.3 Emissions and greenhouse effect

2.3.1 Emissions

This section seeks to unravel the mystery of gases emitted by crop residues on the event of

burning. Satyendra et al. (2013) concluded that, open burning of crop residue significantly

increases the level of particulate matter and gaseous pollutants such as S02, NOx, VOCs, and

PAHs in the atmosphere. Stockwell et al. (2014) also identified the same gases as Satyendra

et al. (2013) did, and added that ammonia (NH3) is also part of these pollutants.

Miller et al. (2008) concluded that crop residues could emit N20 (nitrous oxide) gases and as

well act as a denitrifier even to crops on being incorporated into the soil. Crop residue

incorporation into the soil is a major source of reducing global warming through the

reduction of carbon dioxide, in that when residue is incorporated into the soil, it acts as a sink

for carbon on decomposition, mitigating the emission of carbon dioxide to cause harm to the

atmosphere (Lal, 2005).

2.3.1.1 Particulate matter (PM) concentrations

Particulate matter is a combination of fine solids and aerosols that are suspended in the air we

breathe or individual particles that cluster to form the smoke. This is a major pollutant that is

very dangerous to man and environment. There are two main types, thus PM of 1.0 (smaller

than the width of a single human hair) and 2.5. The values are representations of the diameter

of the constituent particles measured in microns. The major components of PM are sulfate,

nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride, black carbon, mineral dust and water (WHO, 2016). Air

quality measurements for PM can be recorded on minutes, hourly, daily, monthly or annual

mean basis with units as ug/m3. Health issues arising from exposure to these gases are

cardiovascular and respiratory diseases when chronic and, headaches and fatigue for short

13

period exposure (https://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqi_brochure.index). According to

WHO (2014), ambient air pollution killed 3.7 million people specifically belonging to low

and middle income nations, which accounts for about 82% of the world population in 2012,

while indoor air pollution killed 4.3 million with such attributed to household air pollution

caused by cooking and heating their homes with biomass fuel.

2.3.1.2 Carbon monoxide (CO) concentration

Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas that is formed when the carbon in fuels do not

completely burn. Apart from contributing to global warming, it also causes respiratory

disorder and lung diseases, disrupts mental alertness and vision

(https://airnow.gov/index.cfm?). CO concentration is measured in parts per million (ppm) and

can be also be recorded on minutes, hourly, daily, monthly or annual basis.

2.3.2 Greenhouse gas

According to FAO, (2015), greenhouse gases are those gaseous constituents of the

atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific

wavelengths within the spectrum of thermal infrared radiation emitted by the earth’s surface,

the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. The primary greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere

are water vapour (H20) carbon dioxide (C02), nitrous oxide (N20), methane (CH4) and ozone

(03).

On the global front, with reference to the Kyoto protocol, the six main greenhouse gases are:

Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N20), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/).

14

Lal (2005), deduced a relation to greenhouse gas intensity as the ratio of greenhouse gases

emitted (carbon equivalent) per real gross domestic product. As global warming is perfectly

related to greenhouse gas effect and can never be without climate change, Conway of

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (2008) helps by defining global

warming as the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of

greenhouse gases", while climate change is "a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a

region on Earth.

2.4 Energy content

2.4.1 Energy content of coconut

Energy content of coconut husk simply expresses the quantum of potential energy contained

in the coconut husk. Energy content of a substance can be described as calorific value or heat

capacity.

2.4.1.1 Calorific value (heating value) of coconut

Calorific value is the amount of energy produced as a result of the complete combustion of a

material or fuel. Energy values for coconut husk relating to its moisture content, approximate

ash content and lower heating value (FAO, 2000) are represented in Table 2.1.

15

Table 2.1: Energy values of coconut husk

Moisture content (% dry basis) 5-10

Approximate ash content (%) 6

Lower heating value (MJ/kg) 16.7

Source: FAO, (2000).

Heating values of coconut husk are the amount of thermal energy stored within the coconut

husk that can be measured through heating. According to Yokoyama (2008), heating values

of coconut residues with respect to coconut shell, charcoal and husk charcoal are represented

in table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Heating values of coconut residues Type of coconut residue Heating value, MJ/kg

Coconut shell 0.018

Coconut shell charcoal 27

COCONUT husk charcoal 26

Source: Yokoyama (2008).

Energy content for selected parts of the coconut fruit are represented in Table 3

Table 2.3: Energy content for selected parts of the coconut fruit Biofuel Energy content (MJ/kg)

Charcoal 30

Coconut husks 10

Coconut shells 18

Source: (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/biofuel-energy).

16

Raghavan (2010), stated that coconut husk has an energy content of 16.7 MJ/kg. Knowledge

on energy content allows one to know the energy potential of a crop residue.

2.4.1.2 Heat capacity

Heat capacity is the ratio of the heat added to or removed from a material to the resulting

temperature change. Also, it can be described as the amount of energy needed to raise the

temperature of a substance by 1˚C.

2.5 COMPOSITION OF COCONUT

Coconut is botanically a drupe from the family Arecaceae and can naturally be propagated by

seeds. The main agents of dispersal of coconut are animals (man) and water (sea, rivers and

others). Domestic varieties include Vanuatu Tall, Sri-Lankan Green Dwarf, Malayan Yellow

Dwarf, Equatorial Green Dwarf and West Africa Tall. Apart from West Africa Tall being a

pure breed, the others are hybrids.

2.5.1 Physical properties

The coconut fruit is made up of 35%wt husk, 28%wt copra, 12%wt shell, 5%wt milk and

20%wt water (Bradley and Huang, 2006). This implies that the edible part of the coconut

fruit is made up of the copra and water, forming 53%wt of the coconut fruit with specific

composition as 33%wt as copra (original copra weight and milk weight) and 20%wt as juice.

The non-edible part of the coconut fruit is also made up of the husk and shell summing up to

47%wt of the whole coconut fruit, specifically as 35%wt husk and 17%wt shell.

17

One third of the coconut fruit’s make-up is the husk which envelops the hard shell structure

of about 3.5 mm thickness (Ganiron, 2013). The external appearance of the husk varies from

decidedly dull brown when fully ripe to bright green when immature. There are other

varieties of coconut whose husks are either golden yellow or yellow brown. The husk is full

of long, coarse fibers, all running in one direction.

2.5.2 Coconut husk

The transverse section of the coconut fruit showing the various parts is represented in Plate

2.5. A coconut husk is made up of the outermost layer (exocarp) and the inner layer

(endocarp) that wraps the fruit. The husk is composed of 70%wt pith, a lignin which behaves

like phenolic resin and 30%wt fibre, also made from lignin but with a fibrous morphology

(Snijder, 2005). The phenolic resin exhibits good properties of an adhesive. The husk also

contains cellulose, pyroligneous acid, gas, charcoal, tar, tannin and potassium. The chemicals

contained in the coconut husk and its uses are represented in (Table 2.4).

18

Plate 2.5: Transverse section of coconut fruit Source: Bradley and Huang, (2006).

Table 2.4: Uses of the chemical properties of coconut husk Chemical Uses

Tar Sealing agent on wood surfaces

Phenolic resin Adhesive

Tannin Adhesive

Charcoal Fuel

19

2.5.3 Coconut fibre

The coconut fibre is of a thread-like pattern found in the coconut husk. The 30%wt fibre

consists mainly of lignin and cellulose. Lignin is responsible for the stiffness of the coir and

the cellulose is a water soluble element that absorbs water about ten times its weight in water.

2.5.4 Coconut shell

The coconut shell is the hardest layer of the fruit that houses the copra and juice. According

to (Hasanah et al., 2012), the coconut shell is also made up of hemicellulose, cellulose and

lignin. It is twice as hard as hardwood and has a high-energy density.

2.5.5 Copra

The copra is composed of 50%wt of water, 33%wt of coconut oil and 17%wt of white meal

(Bradley and Huang, 2006). The water contains nutritious elements of low fats and high

levels of electrolytes for rehydration. The iodine and cetane number of coconut oil puts it on

top of options as the best choice for bio-diesel (Diaz, n.d.). The iodine number denotes how

finely it will burn in a diesel engine with few particle emissions, while the cetane number

denotes how well it will burn at higher temperatures and pressures. The copra also serves as

feed for humans and some animals such as pigs and poultry.

2.5.6 Uses of coconut and its husk

To the pregnant woman, 7% of the content of the juice that contains calcium helps in bone

formation in the foetus and about 95 g of water which help prevent dehydration. It also

contains 7% of magnesium that prevent hypomagnesia that is usually experienced during

20

pregnancy and 7% of sodium that help retain water inorder to prevent dehydration

(http://ndba.nal.usda.gov/).

In as much as the copra supplies food to man, it also contains oil that is used for cooking,

beauty make up (dressing the hair, skin moisturizer), and making biodiesel. This same oil is

used as pest resistant in crop storage structures by smearing it on wood to repell pests away

from a crop. Coconut oil is also used to generate electricity especially on small scales

(Raghavan, 2010).

Before the 20th century, the coconut husk was widely utilised for the making of thatched

roofs, ropes and yarns, door mats, sacks, menial aesthetic constructions and mulching plants.

In this 21st century, the uses of coconut are more evident in the fabrication of car seat covers,

stuffed chairs, and fibres for clothing to replace polyester fibres. In addition, coconut husk is

now employed in the conversion to fuel which is used to power cars, control soil erosion and

flood, fertilisers and as aquarium filter. This clearly shows that the utilisation of coconut husk

has gained more improvement in these present days than the past.

21

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Experimental site, collection of coconuts.

The experiment was conducted at the Cook Stove Testing and Expertise Laboratory (C-LAB,

KNUST) and Food Science laboratory which are under the auspices of Technology

Consultancy Centre (TCC, KNUST). Coconuts were purchased from a dealer who obtains his

coconuts from Jomoro District; one of the 22 districts in the Western Region, located in the

south western part of the country. In this study, the pure breed is tagged as local coconut

variety while the mixed breed is tagged as hybrid coconut variety.

3.2 Weighing whole fruit

The first step was to weigh all the 25 nuts one by one, and variety by variety. This was done

by using an electronic balance and the data was recorded as whole weight for all the 25 nuts.

This was done to determine the unit weight for a coconut according to its variety.

3.3 Dehusking

The husk of the coconut was removed from the shell using a cutlass. This was done in direct

relation to any coconut initially weighed so that the respective values could tally. Values for

this step was recorded as husk weight.

3.4 Weighing the shell and fruit

In order to weigh the shell, the copra and juice were separated from the shell. The shell was

weighed separately and recorded as shell weight. The weight of the fruit (juice and copra)

22

was obtained by finding the difference between the whole weight and husk weight.

Thereafter, the percentage of parts that constitute waste was computed as;

Percentage of waste = × 100%

3.5 Drying

Two main drying methods were employed in this experiment; sun-drying and oven-drying

method. Coconut wastes collected from coconut vendors were dried for 6 consecutive times

on a 3-day interval. This was done to analyse the behaviour of coconut waste when burnt by

local vendors since they treat it as such. The coconut husk was reduced to a moisture content

of 8% which is within the moisture content range of fuelwood. This was also set up to

analyse the behaviour of coconut husk when treated as wood. For oven drying method, the

husk was subjected to 110˚C for 16 hours to reduce its MC to 8%.

Plate 3.1: Field measurement of moisture Plate 3.2: Picture showing dehusking content using the wood moisture meter. of coconut.

23

3.6 Charring

The charring experiment was carried out at the Food Processing unit of TCC. The charring

unit is metallic drum of dimensions 57cm by 85cm. It has a tunnel attached to the lid as vent.

Holes are perforated beneath the container to allow limited entry of oxygen. Under a summer

hut, brick stones were mounted to act as stands for the charring unit and also to allow limited

amount of oxygen to get to the chamber area. The container part of the charring unit was then

mounted unto stones then loaded with the coconut husk ready to be charred. The first part of

the experiment was conducted for coconut waste collected from coconut sellers. 5kg each of

every sample was weighed and prepared to be charred. When the burning begun and wild fire

was observed, the lid was fitted unto the container to stop further entrance of oxygen as well

as providing a channel for the smoke to escape. Temperature of the container was recorded at

regular intervals of time using an infrared thermometer. The nature of the smoke was

observed while the experiment was on-going. The second part of the experiment was

conducted using coconut husk of moisture content 8%. The charring test for the reduced

moisture content sample was repeated for three times.

3.7 Determination of emissions

The indoor air pollution meter was used for this analysis. Before the experiment begun, the

device was opened for about fifteen minutes to allow the device to get accustomed to the

local temperature since the carbon monoxide signal is very sensitive to temperature. A slow

mode sampling rate was selected due to the duration of the experiment. Thereafter, the meter

was turned on for an hour to activate the system. After this, the device was hang at the

background or at the charring site for at least ten minutes in order to differentiate between the

addition of indoor air pollution and the present ambient. Time at which this was done was

24

recorded. When charring began, few minutes were allowed to elapse to allow the burning to

start up well and devoid unnecessary smoke, before timing as “test begins”. After charring,

the meter was turned off and time was recorded as “test ends”. There was an SD card that

stored the data on the meter. This data was then processed on a computer using software

programs such as Terreterm and Livegraph for connecting the meter directly to the computer

and plotting graph on the data respectively.

3.8 Energy content determination

The bomb calorimeter was used for analysing the energy content of the coconut husk. The

crucible was placed on the weighing pan of the analytical balance to measure and tare its

weight. Using the prongs, one gram of the sample was fetched onto the crucible in the

analytical balance, then the crucible was placed onto the crucible support of oxygen bomb.

Both ends of the firing wire were connected to two electrode rods of oxygen bomb by

bending them in a circular manner for firm contact. Thereafter, the oxygen bomb core was

moved into the oxygen bomb cylinder that had been filled with 10ml of distilled water earlier

on. After that, the oxygen bomb cover was closed tight. Next, the oxygen bomb was filled

with oxygen to about 2.8 to 3.0 MPa of pressure. The oxygen bomb was immersed into a

bucket of water to determine the presence of leakage. Being satisfied of the outcome, the

oxygen bomb was placed inside the bomb calorimeter and closed, then the system

automatically begun the test. After about 10mins when the test was completed, the sample

had been completely combusted with values of the heat capacity and calorific displayed on

the screen of the desktop. The calorimeter was opened to take the sample out. In doing this,

oxygen was released using a release valve and then, the crucible taken out, washed in

distilled water and cleaned with the bomb towel. This test was also conducted three times,

then an average for the heat capacity or calorific value computed.

25

Plate 3.3: Picture showing researcher winding wires over electrodes on the oxygen bomb of the bomb calorimeter.

Plate 3.4: Sectional view of the C- lab, KNUST.

26

Plate 3.5: Picture showing the nature of Plate 3.6: Picture showing the nature of

smoke produced after drying coconut smoke produced after drying coconut

waste for 15 days waste for 3 days

Plate 3.7: Picture showing initial Plate 3.8: Picture showing researcher

charring process making observations and taking records of time

27

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Energy Content of Charred Coconut Husk

Calorific value and heat capacity of charred coconut husk of local and hybrid varieties are

represented in Table 4.1. The hybrid variety of coconut had an average heat capacity of 17.68

kJ/K while the local coconut variety had an average of 11.80 kJ/K. For calorific value, the

local coconut variety had an average value of 11.54 MJ/kg while the hybrid coconut variety

had an average of 9.73 MJ/kg.

Table 4.1: Heat capacity and calorific value of local and hybrid variety of coconut Coconut Variety Average Heat Capacity

(kJ/K)

Average Calorific Value

(MJ/kg)

Local 11.80 11.54

Hybrid 17.68 9.73

The local coconut variety had a higher calorific value compared to the hybrid variety. This

implies that at the end of a combustion process, the local coconut variety would produce a

higher amount of energy (11.54 MJ/kg) than the hybrid coconut variety (9.73 MJ/kg). The

hybrid variety had a higher heat capacity as compared to the local variety. This implies that

the hybrid coconut variety would require a higher amount of energy (17.68 kJ/kg) to cause a

1˚C rise in temperature than the local coconut variety (11.80 kJ/K) when subjected to

combustion.

The calorific values obtained; 11.54 MJ/kg (local variety) and 9.73 MJ/kg (hybrid variety)

differ from Raghavan (2010) recorded calorific value (16.7 MJ/kg) for coconut husk. The

difference in these values can be attributed to variations in geographical locations,

28

biotechnology make-up of fruits, weather restrictions, soil nature, as well as experimental site

conditions.

In determining the amount of energy from a given mass of coconut, for a waste of 1.46 kg

obtained from a local coconut variety, an energy content of (mass × calorific value) = 1.46 ×

11.54 = 16.85 MJ would be generated. Whereas, for a waste of 1.12 kg obtained from a

hybrid coconut variety, an energy content of (mass × calorific value) = 1.12 × 9.73 = 10.90

MJ would be generated. This again clearly shows that the local variety would yield a better

amount of energy than the hybrid variety.

Furthermore, according to Ofori-Agyeman, (2016), the maximum and minimum averages of

coconut consumed daily in Kumasi (Ghana) are 134 and 86 respectively. If a local coconut

variety weighs 2.23 kg, a total weight for 86 coconuts would yield 191.78 kg. If 50.22% of

the coconut consist of the husk, then the amount of husk from the 86 coconuts will be 96.3

kg. From this, the amount of energy that can be produced daily will be 1,111.3 MJ, 33,339

MJ monthly, and 400,069 MJ annually only from Kumasi.

A minimum of 86 coconuts was chosen for the analysis because predictions are best done on

minimum conditions. Also, the energy content of the local breed was chosen because people

prefer consuming the local variety to the hybrid variety due to its weight and copra content.

4.2 Emissions from charred coconut husk

Analysis of emissions obtained from the study after sun-drying the coconut waste are

represented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. The hybrid coconut variety recorded higher average values

of 1208 ug/m3 for PM concentration and 10.6 ppm for CO concentration, as compared to

local coconut variety, with 1078 ug/m3 for PM concentration and 9.18 ppm for CO

concentration.

29

Table 4.2: Particulate matter and Carbon monoxide concentrations of hybrid coconut variety.

TIME (days) PM (ug/m3) CO (ppm)

3 days 1425 12.1

6 days 996 10.8

9 days 994 8.1

12 days 1300 11.1

15 days 1223 10.4

18 days 1313 11.1

AVERAGE = 1208 AVERAGE = 10.6

Table 4.3: Particulate matter and Carbon monoxide concentrations of local coconut variety.

TIME (days) PM (ug/m3) CO (ppm)

3 1169 9.9

6 937 7.9

9 1390 11.9

12 933 7.8

15 975 8.5

18 1066 9.1

AVERAGE = 1078 AVERAGE = 9.18

PM and CO concentrations obtained from both varieties are represented in Figures 4.1 and

4.2 respectively. PM and CO concentrations of the hybrid variety was between 994 and 1425

ug/m3 and 12.1 and 8.1 ppm respectively. The local coconut variety’s PM and CO

concentrations was between 933 and 1169 ug/m3 and 11.9 and 7.8 ppm respectively.

30

Figure 4.1: Particulate matter concentration of local and hybrid varieties

Figure 4.2: Carbon monoxide concentration for local and hybrid varieties The hybrid coconut variety recorded its highest peak for PM concentration as 1425 ug/m3 on

day 3, while the local coconut variety recorded its highest PM concentration as 1390 ug/m3

on day 9. The highest CO concentration of the hybrid variety was recorded on day 3 as 12.1

ppm, while the highest CO concentration of the local coconut variety was recorded on day 9

as 11.9 ppm.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

3 6 9 12 15 18

PM (u

g/m

3 )

TIME (days)

LOCAL HYBRID

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 5 6

CO (p

pm)

TIME (days)

LOCAL HYBRID

31

PM2.5 and CO were specifically chosen for this study due to the effects these emissions pose

to man and the environment. Comparing values accumulated from the study to WHO

standards, it was realized that values obtained from the experiment were beyond the set

limits, hence harmful to man and the environment. Emissions produced after oven-drying

method was also harmful because they had values similar to that of the sun-drying method.

This means that people who use coconut husks as firewood are under the risks of the effects

from PM and CO emissions.

From the study, it was realized that as the number of days for drying increased, the moisture

content of coconut waste decreased. It was also realized that as the moisture content

decreased, the rate of combustion also increased. This was evident in the type of smoke

produced during the charring process and the temperatures recorded during the charring

process. Coconut waste with high moisture content produced thick smoke while those with

lower moisture content produced less thick smoke. The rate of combustion can be associated

with its moisture content.

The PM and CO concentrations did not reduce as the days for the experiment increased. This

is due to the changes in ambient temperature, relative humidity and wind directions.

However, these variations could be due to conditions of soil that these varieties were grown

from, as confirmed by Simoneit et al. (2000) that ‘emissions from a combustion of any

biomass depend directly on the chemical composition of the biomass and combustion

conditions’. This is due to the fact that, the coconuts used for the experiment were not

coconuts grown from a particular piece of land, rather from different places and by different

farmers though all from the Western Region.

32

4.3 Percentage of parts that result as waste

Average weights of husk, shell and fruit from 25 samples of both coconut varieties is

represented in table 4.2. The hybrid variety (1.05kg) represents 66.67% waste whereas, the

local variety (1.46kg) represents 65.47% waste. The hybrid variety has a higher percentage

waste than the local variety.

Table 4.4: Weight of parts of local and hybrid varieties VARIETY Average weight of

husk per coconut (kg)

Average weight of shell

per coconut (kg)

Average weight of coconut

fruit per coconut (kg)

Local 1.12 0.34 0..77

Hybrid 0.80 0.25 0.63

Based on the percentage of parts that results as waste, the local coconut variety (65.47%) is

higher than the hybrid coconut variety (62.50%) as indicated in Figures 4.3 and 4.4. This also

means that the amount of waste generated from the local variety is heavier than that

generated from the hybrid variety.

33

Figure 4.3: Percentage weight composition of waste for local coconut variety.

Figure 4.4: Percentage weight composition of waste for hybrid coconut variety.

FRUIT (Copra and Juice) 34.5%

WASTE 65.47%

FRUIT (Copra and Juice) 37.5%

WASTE 62.5%

34

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

This study sought to determine energy content, emissions and percentage of coconut parts

that constituted waste. From the study, the following conclusions were drawn:

x The local coconut variety had a calorific value of 11.54 MJ/kg while the hybrid

coconut variety had a calorific value of 9.73 MJ/kg. This means that with an energy

content of 11.54 MJ/kg, the local coconut variety would generate greater amount of

heat than the hybrid coconut variety which had an energy content of 9.73 MJ/kg.

x Emissions generated from both coconut varieties were beyond the air quality limits.

This means that emissions are toxic to man and the environment; thus causing

respiratory disorders to man and contributing to global warming.

x The percentage of parts that resulted as waste for the local coconut variety was

65.47% while that for hybrid coconut variety was 62.50%. This implies that a greater

proportion of the parts of coconut is waste.

5.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations arose out of the study:

1. Coconut husk could be an alternative to wood due to its energy content which is

comparable to wood.

35

2. A well designed and efficient charring unit should be used for charring that would

intend help reduce emissions during the charring process.

3. Due to the greater amount of coconut parts (husk and shell) being waste, it could be a

useful biomass for energy, useful raw material for industrial purposes and soil

amendments in farming.

4. People who use coconut husk as fuelwood should burn in the open to lessen the effect

of emissions on their health.

36

REFERENCES

Ablordeppey, S. D. (2015). Ghana has Potential to produce 110MW with Biomass. The West

Africa Clean Energy and Environment Exhibition (WACEE’15) and Conferences.

The Daily Graphic, p 1-18. Retrieved from http://graphic.com.gh/news/general-

news/38599-Ghana-Has-Potential-To-Produce-110-Mgw-

WithBiomass.html#sthash.Cc4z8TVn.dpuf on January 9, 2016.

Ayamga, E. A., Kemausor, F. and Addo, A. (2015). Technical analysis of crop residue

biomass energy in an agricultural region of Ghana. Journal of Resources

Conservation and Recycling 98. p. 51-60.

Balogun, K. and Liu, X. (2012). Biomass Production for Energy in Developing Countries

(case study: Case Study: China and Nigeria. (Undergraduate thesis, University of

Gävle, Sweden). Retrieved from

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A538226&dswid=7774

Benefits of reducing waste, (n.d).

Retrieved from http://www.branz.co.nz/cms_display.php?sn=113&pg=4133 on

November 27, 2015.

Bradley, W. L. and Huang, H. (2006). Converting Coconuts into Value-Added Products.

Serving Christ by Serving the Poorest of the Poor. p 1-9. Retrieved from

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/coconuts.pdf on April 2, 2016.

Bradley, W. L., Poel, J. and Huang, H. (2006). Cocos nucifera: An Abundant Renewable

Source of Energy. Proceedings of the International Conference on Renewable

Energy for Developing Countries. p. 1-5. Retrieved from

http://www.udc.edu/docs/cere/Cocos%20Nucifera-paper.pdf on March 8, 2016.

37

Conserve energy future, (2015). Advantages and Disadvantages of Recycling. Retrieved from

www.conserve-energy-future.com/advanatges-and-disadvantages-of-recycling.php

on December 26, 2015.

Dasappa. S. (2011). Energy for Sustainable Development. Potential of biomass energy for

electricity generation in sub-Saharan Africa, (2011) (15), p. 203-213. Retrieved

from http://www.sciencedirect.com./science/article/pii/S0973082611000524 on

October 30, 2015.

Diaz, R. S. (n.d.). Coconut for Clean Air. Retrieved from

http://www.coconutresearchcenter.org/Coconut%20For%20Clean%20Air.pdf on

October 24, 2015.

Duku, M. H., Gu, S., and Hagan, E. B. (2011). A comprehensive review of biomass resources

and biofuels potential in Ghana. Renewable and Sustainable Energy. (15), p. 404–

415.

Energy Commission (EC) (Ghana) (2006). Strategic national energy plan 2006-2020.

Woodfuels and Renewables. (4), p, 13-31. Retrieved from

http://www.energycom.gov.gh/downloads/Technical%20Reports/SNEP%20FINAL

%20REPORTS/SNEP_Electricity_Summary_final_Print_2nd%5B1%5D.pdf

Energy Commission (EC) (Ghana) (2012). Sustainable energy for all Ghana action plan.

Retrieved from http://energycom.gov.gh/files/SE4ALL-

GHANA%20ACTION%20PLAN.pdf

Engineering toolbox. (n.d.). Common biofuels and their energy content. Retrieved from

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/biofuel-energy-content-d_1356.html on March

26, 2016.

38

Environmental Benefits of Waste Management. (2012). Retrieved from http://recycle-

recycling.com.au/article_type/environmental-benefits-of-waste-management/ on

December 28, 2015.

Erik, C. (2008). What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change. Retrieved from

www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html on

December 29, 2015.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2000. Forests and energy. FAO forestry paper

154. Retrieved from www.fao.org/uploads/media/EAN%20-%20final%20web-

version.pdf p. 81.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2012. Bioenergy and Biofuels.

Sustainability Pathways. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Factsheet_

BIOENERGY.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2015. FAO Climate Change and Bioenergy

Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/climatechange/65923/en/

Food and Agriculture Organisation. (n.d). Parameters and units. Retrieved from

http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/j0926e/j0926e06.html

Ganiron, J. T. U. (2013). Sustainable Management of Waste Coconut Shells as Aggregates in

Concrete Mixture. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology. 6(5), 7-14.

Gertenbach, W. D. and Dugmore, T. J. (2004), Crop residues for animal feeding. Journal of

SA-ANIM SCI, (5), p. 49- 51.

Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC), 2016. Investing in Ghana's Cash Crops. Sector

Overview. Retrieved from http://gipcghana.com/17-investment-projects/agriculture-

and-agribusiness/cash-crops/287-investing-in-ghana-s-cash-crops.html

39

Ghana Innovation Marketplace (GIM) (2009). Waste Management Conference and

Exhibition. 11th-12th November, 2009. Great Hall, KNUST. Retrieved on

November 8, 2015.

“Greening the Savannah Project” (2012).

Retrieved from http://www.ecofibersghana.com/view-content/15/Projects-2.html on

October 29, 2015.

Gülzow, E. (2015). Realising the World’s Sustainable Bioenergy Potential. IEA Bioenergy

Conference 2015, Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from

https://ieabioenergy2015.org/fileadmin/user_upload/PR_Bioenergy_and_Climate_C

hange-02-07-15_engl.pdf on March 18, 2016.

Hasanah, U., Setiaji, B., Anwar, C., (2012). The Chemical Composition and Physical

Properties of the Light and Heavy Tar Resulted from Coconut Shell Pyrolysis.

Journal of. Pure Applied Chemistry. Res., 2012, 1 (1), p. 26-32. Retrieved from

http://jpacr.ub.ac.id/index.php/jpacr/article/download/102/100 on December 28,

2015.

http://dignitycoconuts.com/zero-waste/

https://sites.google.com/a/illinois.edu/cpsc116coconuts/home/uses-of-coconuts

http://sweetdomesticity.com/2014/03/11/sustainable-seed-starting-using-coconut-coir-

instead-of-peat/

http://www.braidedroses.com/category/home/lifestyle/hobbies/

International Energy Agency (IEA), (2007). Bioenergy Project Development and Biomass

Supply. Good Practice Guideline. Paris, France. (1), p. 1-64.

40

Kukreja. R., (2015). Conserve energy future, 2015. Advantages and Disadvantages of

Recycling. Retrieved from www.conserve-energy-future.com/advanatges-and-

disadvantages -of-recycling.php on December 26, 2015.

Kyoto protocol. Targets for the first commitment period. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol on October 30, 2015.

Lal, R. (2005). World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel.

Environment International, (31), p. 575– 584. Retrieved from

http://tinread.usarb.md:8888/tinread/fulltext/lal/biofuel.pdf on November 30, 2015.

Lehmann. J. and Joseph. S. (2009). Biochar for Environmental Management: An

Introduction. (3), p. 1-9. Retrieved from http://www.biochar-

international.org/biochar/carbon on January 3, 2016.

Mamlouk, M. S. and Zaniewski, J. P. (2006). Materials for Civil and Construction Engineers

(3). Manila, National Bookstore. Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/medziee/materials-for-civil-construction-engineers-2011-

mamlouk-zaniewski on February 19, 2016.

Meyer, C., (2001). Recycled Glass: Waste Material to Valuable Resource. Construction

Materials and Technology. (1), p. 12-34.

Milbrandt, A. (2009). National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), (2009). Assessment

of biomass resources in Liberia. Technical report, NREL/TP-6A2-44808. Retrieved

from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/44808.pdf on November 13, 2015.

Miller, M. N., Zebarth, B. J., Dandie, C.E., Burton, D. L., Goyer, C. and Trevors, J. T.

(2008). Crop residue influence on denitrification, N2O emissions and denitrifier

community abundance in soil. Journal of Soil Biology & Biochemistry. (40), p.

2553–2562.

41

Ofori-Agyeman, C. (2016). Assessment of Coconut Waste Management: A Case Study

Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly. (Unpublished undergraduate thesis), Kwame

Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana.

Ofori-Nyarko, E. (2000). Woodfuels Use in Ghana: Social, Economic and Energy

Dimensions. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y3198e/Y3198E05.htm

on May 7, 2016.

Ogawa, H. (2005). Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries. Retrieved

from http://www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/swm-fogawa1.html on January 30, 2016.

Ogunjimi, A. (2015). Advantages and Disadvantages of Building a Waste Management

Facility. Demands media, Hearst newspapers.

Retrieved from smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-building-waste-

managementfacility-34415.html on December 26, 2015.

Otoo, W. (2013). Evaluation of Households Solid Waste Generation and Disposal: A Case

Study in Ejisu, Kwamo and Fumesua in The Ejisu–Juaben Municipality of Ghana.

(Undergraduate thesis), Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,

Ghana. Retrieved from

ir.knust.edu.gh/bitstream/123456789/5598/1/Final%20thesis.pdf on April 4, 2016.

Portner, B., Salmi, A., Ki, A., Enz F. K., Wymann von Dach, S. and Ehrensperger, A. (2009).

Bioenergy for the poor, risks and opportunities. Info Resources Focus N°3/09. p.3-

16. Retrieved from http://www.inforesources.ch/pdf/focus09_3_f.pdf on March 26,

2016.

Potential of biomass energy for electricity generation in sub-Saharan Africa, (2011).

Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082611000524 on October

30, 2015.

42

Puopiel, F. (2010). Solid waste management in Ghana. The case of Tamale Metropolitan.

(Master’s thesis, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana).

Retrieved from

http://ir.knust.edu.gh/bitstream/123456789/146/1/Felix%20Puopiel%20thesis.pdf

Raghavan, K. (2010). Biofuels from coconut. FACT. (1), p. 1-102. Retrieved from

https://energypedia.info/images/f/f9/EN-Biofuels_from_Coconuts-

Krishna_Raghavan.pdf on March 26, 2016.

Satyendra, T., Singh, R. N. and Shaishav, S. (2013). Emissions from Crop/Biomass Residue

Burning Risks to Atmospheric Quality. International Research Journal of Earth

Sciences (1), p. 24-30.

Srinivas, H. (2015). Waste Disposal Methods; Advantages and Disadvantages, Urban Waste

Management, Urban Environmental Management. www.gdrc.org/uem/index.html on

December 26, 2015.

State Bioenergy Primer, (2009). Information and Resources for States on Issues,

Opportunities, and Options for Advancing Bioenergy. Retrieved from

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P10054EM.PDF?Dockey=P10054EM.PDF.

Stockwell, C. E., Yokelson, R. J., Kreidenweis, S. M., Robinson, A. L., DeMott, P. J.,

Sullivan, R. C., Reardon, J., Ryan, K. C., Griffith, D. W. T and Stevens, L. (2014).

Trace gas emissions from combustion of peat, crop residue, domestic biofuels,

grasses, and other fuels. Atmos. Chem. Phys (14), p. 9727-9754.

Snijder, H.B.M. (2005). Coir Based Building and Packaging Materials (CFC/FIGHF/11).

CFC Technical Paper Nr. 43. p. 14-16. Retrieved from http://common-

fund.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Technical/Hard_Fibres/Technical_Pap

er_43.pdf on March 19, 2016.

43

Tooy, D., Nelwan, L., Pangkerego, F. (2014). Evaluation of Biomass Gasification Using

Coconut Husks in Producing Energy to Generate Small-Scale Electricity.

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Energy and Manufacturing

Engineering. (ICAEME) (2014). p. 84-88. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Retrieved from

http://iieng.org/images/proceedings_pdf/4927E0614056.pdf on January 20, 2016.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), (2012). Commodity

Profile: Coconut. Infocomm. Retrieved from

http://www.unctad.info/en/Infocomm/AACP-Products/COMMODITY-PROFILE---

Coconut2/

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), (2009). Developing integrated solid waste

management plan. Assessment of current waste management system and gaps

therein. (2), p.1-21. Retrieved from

http://www.unep.org/ietc/Portals/136/Publications/

Waste%2Management/ISWMPlan_Vol2.pdf

World Health Organisation (WHO), (2014). Burden of disease from Household Air Pollution

for 2012. p. 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/

outdoorair/databases/FINAL_HAP_AAP_ BoD_24March2014.pdf

World Health Organisation (WHO), (2016). Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health.

Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

Yokoyama, S. and Matsumura, Y. (2008). A Guide for Biomass Production and Utilization.

The Asian Biomass Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.jie.or.jp/biomass/

AsiaBiomassHandbookE-080917.pdf on January 23, 2016.

44

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

Energy Content of Coconut Husk

Appendix 1 A1

Heat capacity

Table 1A1: Heat capacity of local variety Readings Mass

(kg)

HEAT CAPACITY

(J/K)

1 1.000 12346.89

2 1.000 11918.75

3 1.000 11121.47

AVERAGE HEAT CAPACITY = 11.80 kJ/K

Appendix 1 A2

Table 1A2: Heat capacity of hybrid variety READINGS MASS

(kg)

HEAT CAPACITY

(J/K)

1 1.000 18719.37

2 1.000 21022.58

3 1.000 13289.28

AVERAGE HEAT CAPACITY = 17.68 kJ/K

45

Appendix 1 B

Calorific value

Appendix 1B1

Table 1B1: Calorific value of local variety READINGS MASS

(kg)

CALORIFIC VALUE

(J/kg)

1 1.000 12815

2 1.000 10174

3 1.000 11628

AVERAGE CALORIFIC VALUE = 11.54 MJ/kg

Appendix 1 B2

Table 1B2: Calorific value of hybrid variety READINGS MASS

(kg)

CALORIFIC VALUE

(J/kg)

1 1.000 9394

2 1.000 9762

3 1.000 10044

AVERAGE CALORIFIC VALUE = 9.73 MJ/kg

46

Appendix 2

EMISSIONS

Appendix 2A1

Table 2 A1: Moisture content of local coconut variety DAYS (time) MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

FRESH 71.2

3 DAYS 36.4

6 DAYS 26.1

9 DAYS 21.7

12 DAYS 16.8

15 DAYS 13.7

18 DAYS 10.3

Figure 2A1: Moisture content of local coconut variety for 18 days

71.2

36.4

26.1 21.7

16.8 13.7

10.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

MC

(%)

TIME (DAYS)

FRESH 3 DAYS 6 DAYS 9 DAYS 12 DAYS 15 DAYS 18 DAYS

47

Appendix 2 A2

Table 2A2: Moisture content of hybrid coconut variety DAYS MC

FRESH 68.3

3 DAYS 32.2

6 DAYS 24.5

9 DAYS 20.8

12 DAYS 17.1

15 DAYS 14.5

18 DAYS 11.9

Figure 2A2: Moisture content of hybrid coconut variety for 18 days.

68.3

32.2

24.5 20.8

17.1 14.5

11.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

MC

(%)

TIME (DAYS)

FRESH 3 DAYS 6 DAYS 9 DAYS 12 DAYS 15 DAYS 18 DAYS

48

Appendix 2B1

Table 2B1: Temperature produced during the charring of hybrid coconut variety. DAYS (time) TEMPERATURE (˚C)

3 74.2

6 126.4

9 131.8

12 146.3

15 235.8

18 390.4

Table 2B2: Temperature produced during the charring of local coconut variety. DAYS (time) TEMPERATURE (˚C)

3 102.3

6 136.4

9 189.2

12 240.1

15 365.7

18 406.8

49

APPENDIX 2 C1

Figure 2C1: Particulate Matter and Carbon monoxide concentrations of local coconut variety

APPENDIX 2C2

Figure 2C2: Particulate Matter and Carbon monoxide concentrations of hybrid coconut variety.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6

PM (u

g/m

3 )

TIME (days) PM CO

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

CO (p

pm)

(×102)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

CO (p

pm)

PM (u

g/m

3 )

TIME (days) PM CO

3 6 9 12 15 18

(×102)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12 14

16

50

Table 2D1: WHO standards for particulate matter (2.5) and carbon monoxide concentrations.

POLLUTANT STANDARD

PM2.5 35 ug/m3

CO 7 ppm

Source: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/141496/1/9789241548885_eng.pdf

51

APPENDIX 3

PERCENTAGE OF PARTS THAT END UP AS WASTE

APPENDIX 3A1

Table 3A1: Weights of parts of local coconut variety SAMPLES WHOLE

WEIGHT (kg) HUSK

WEIGHT (kg) SHELL

WEIGHT (kg) WEIGHT OF FRUIT

(kg) s1 3.529 2.079 0.5646 0.8854 s2 1.843 0.887 0.4264 0.5296 s3 1.68 1.0825 0.252 0.3455 s4 2.086 0.844 0.3338 0.9082 s5 1.6445 0.791 0.3025 0.551 s6 2.5385 1.319 0.4062 0.8133 s7 1.6735 0.7035 0.3681 0.6019 s8 2.3005 1.2915 0.2991 0.7099 s9 2.6295 1.41 0.4207 0.7988 s10 2.0265 1.0685 0.2765 0.6815 s11 1.6505 0.7365 0.2533 0.6607 s12 3.2805 1.464 0.2641 1.5524 s13 1.7665 1.048 0.2473 0.4712 s14 2.417 1.353 0.3442 0.7198 s15 3.1525 1.4645 0.5044 1.1836 s16 1.844 0.8565 0.2305 0.757 s17 2.3125 1.0355 0.3468 0.9302 s18 2.176 1.142 0.3238 0.7102 s19 1.6815 0.6875 0.3155 0.6785 s20 1.9005 1.078 0.2523 0.5702 s21 2.259 1.2405 0.2851 0.7334 s22 1.5135 0.867 0.1968 0.4497 s23 2.8225 1.3105 0.4234 1.0886 s24 1.524 0.728 0.4092 0.3868 s25 3.446 1.448 0.5523 1.4457

52

APPENDIX 3A2

Table 3A2: Weights of parts of hybrid coconut variety SAMPLES WHOLE

WEIGHT (kg) HUSK WEIGHT

(kg) SHELL

WEIGHT (kg) WEIGHT OF FRUIT (kg)

s1 1.658 0.925 0.2314 0.5016 s2 1.5475 1.0085 0.2182 0.3208 s3 1.5585 0.893 0.2184 0.4471 s4 1.4395 0.7665 0.1943 0.4787 s5 1.8775 0.9005 0.2804 0.6966 s6 1.7935 0.892 0.2428 0.6587 s7 1.558 0.591 0.2187 0.7483 s8 1.805 0.873 0.2008 0.7312 s9 1.8785 0.7725 0.2205 0.8855 s10 2.0395 0.941 0.1263 0.9722 s11 1.689 0.964 0.278 0.447 s12 1.693 0.5975 0.2377 0.8578 s13 1.8175 0.75 0.254 0.8135 s14 1.8695 0.789 0.2398 0.8407 s15 1.9155 0.7844 0.2394 0.8917 s16 1.8005 0.6865 0.4435 0.6705 s17 1.4564 0.76 0.3178 0.3786 s18 1.4035 0.629 0.2246 0.5499 s19 1.2905 0.5725 0.1255 0.5925 s20 1.363 0.675 0.249 0.439 s21 1.43 0.6195 0.2885 0.522 s22 1.6305 0.744 0.3195 0.567 s23 1.617 0.884 0.125 0.608 s24 1.647 0.89 0.3991 0.3579 s25 2.1105 1.094 0.3345 0.682

53

APPENDIX 3B1

Figure 3B1: Whole weight of local coconut variety.

Appendix 3B2

Figure 3B2: Whole weight of hybrid coconut variety.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 s11 s12 s13 s14 s15 s16 s17 s18 s19 s20 s21 s22 s23 s24 s25

WEI

GHT

(kg)

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 s11 s12 s13 s14 s15 s16 s17 s18 s19 s20 s21 s22 s23 s24 s25

WEI

GHT

(kg)

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

54

Appendix 3C1

Figure 3C1: Husk weight for local coconut variety.

Appendix 32C

Figure 3C2: Husk weight of hybrid coconut variety.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 s11 s12 s13 s14 s15 s16 s17 s18 s19 s20 s21 s22 s23 s24 s25

WEI

GHT

(kg)

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 s11 s12 s13 s14 s15 s16 s17 s18 s19 s20 s21 s22 s23 s24 s25

WEI

GHT

(kg)

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

55

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 s11 s12 s13 s14 s15 s16 s17 s18 s19 s20 s21 s22 s23 s24 s25

WEI

GHT

(kg)

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

Appendix 3D1

Figure 3D1: Shell weight of local coconut variety.

Appendix 3E1

Figure 3E1: Shell weight of hybrid coconut variety.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 s11 s12 s13 s14 s15 s16 s17 s18 s19 s20 s21 s22 s23 s24 s25

WEI

GHT

(kg)

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

56

Appendix 3F1

Figure 3F1: Fruit weight of local coconut variety.

Appendix 3F2

Figure 3F2: Fruit weight of hybrid coconut variety.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 s11 s12 s13 s14 s15 s16 s17 s18 s19 s20 s21 s22 s23 s24 s25

WEI

GHT

(kg)

NUMBER OF SAMPLES

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 s10 s11 s12 s13 s14 s15 s16 s17 s18 s19 s20 s21 s22 s23 s24 s25

WEI

GHT

(kg)

NUMBER OF SAMPLES